We band of brothers: Developer-led Xbox Live Indies promotion returns

Ars speaks to one of the coordinators behind the Indie Games Summer Uprising, …

Xbox Live Indie Games don't sell well for the most part; that's why a group of developers joined together last winter for the Indie Games Winter Uprising. And with summer already in full swing, the next uprising has been announced. The Indie Games Summer Uprising is looking to pick up where its predecessor left off, while making some changes to ensure that it's more successful in terms of producing sales.

The fun begins on August 22, when eight games—selected by a crack team of XBLIG developers—will be released daily. Following that, two community-selected games will launch starting September 1. Voting begins on the first day of August, and will be taking place at the IGSU Facebook page.

One of the issues encountered in the initial Uprising promotion last year was that, due to technical issues with the way games were released, it was difficult to ensure that a title would be released on a specific date. Previously, once a game was approved, it would automatically be published sometime in the next 48 hours. Microsoft has since changed this, allowing developers to release games on a specific date once they pass peer review. To ensure that there aren't any issues this time around, games need to have passed peer review at least two weeks prior to the beginning of the promotion in order to be considered.

The promotion has also shrunk this time around, moving from 14 games to eight (plus the two community-selected titles).

"We wanted to really focus on the quality offered on the platform without throwing too much at gamers at once," IGSU coordinator Dave Voyles told Ars. "14 titles would mean that we would either have to have the promotion stretch over a longer period of time, or release titles on the weekends, which we were trying to stay away from."

Indie Games Summer Uprising

The timing also means that the IGSU will be taking place alongside two other promotions. The Xbox Live Arcade "Summer of Arcade" kicks off on July 20, while Dream.Build.Play.—a Microsoft-run contest for games that utilize XNA Game Studio which boasts a $40,000 top prize—will be announcing its winners in August. While the timing could take some focus off the IGSU, the move was actually intentional.

"The Summer of Arcade naturally draws lots of attention to the dashboard, much of which comes from gamers who may not commonly go there," explained Voyles. "The large sales, great titles, and additional promotion ensures this.

"Moreover, Dream.Build.Play has developers scrambling to create the most polished titles they can in a brief period of time, in an attempt to vie for an opportunity for an XBLA contract."

There are a total of 67 entries for games vying for a spot in the promotion, and you can see each one of them, along with further details about specific games, right here. The line-up includes everything from shooters like Dragons vs. Spaceships to 3D action games like T.E.C. 3001, all the way up to kart racers like Dirchie Kart - World Tour. Though the Uprisings are driven by the development community, the first managed to capture Microsoft's attention, culminating in IGWU ad on the dashboard. Will we see something similar this time around?

"We can't say much at the moment," said Voyles, "other than the fact that they are most certainly aware of it."

18 Reader Comments

I'm really surprised microsoft has not figured out a way to promote the higher quality indie titles (or the fact that they're available at all). I imagine some of this is on purpose to not piss of XBLA publishers and devs, but it's something MS has that other consoles don't and they should be boasting.

Also if indie games are "good" enough (quality or sales) there should be some channel for the devs to publish them in XBLA with all the trappings that entails -- namely achievements.

I'm really surprised microsoft has not figured out a way to promote the higher quality indie titles (or the fact that they're available at all). I imagine some of this is on purpose to not piss of XBLA publishers and devs, but it's something MS has that other consoles don't and they should be boasting.

Also if indie games are "good" enough (quality or sales) there should be some channel for the devs to publish them in XBLA with all the trappings that entails -- namely achievements.

You can blame Microsoft for not having an easy way to put achievements in the XNA dev kit, but the main issue I have also permeates with XBLA: Why can't I play a full game without being connected to Xbox Live?

I'm really surprised microsoft has not figured out a way to promote the higher quality indie titles (or the fact that they're available at all). I imagine some of this is on purpose to not piss of XBLA publishers and devs, but it's something MS has that other consoles don't and they should be boasting.

Also if indie games are "good" enough (quality or sales) there should be some channel for the devs to publish them in XBLA with all the trappings that entails -- namely achievements.

Wouldn't that invalidate their "indie" status if they were supported (read: advertised) by major organizations

(I'm kidding)

Honestly, I do think that any opportunity to grant exposure to any small-time/indie developer's wares is a good thing. I have the feeling they keep the indie section down because it gives MS less revenue than the XBLA, but that's what it is...

You can blame Microsoft for not having an easy way to put achievements in the XNA dev kit, but the main issue I have also permeates with XBLA: Why can't I play a full game without being connected to Xbox Live?

Because the games aren't rated by the ESRB. If any of the XBLIG games has content in it that violates the terms of service, Microsoft will void the license and refund the money of anyone who has purchased the game.

In order for this process to not contain any loopholes, they need consoles to be online in order to validate the license upon each launch of a game.

This online requirement is what allows unrated games on the console. Rating a game through the ESRB is an expensive proposition, one that most developers couldn't afford.

Hi yall, my game Pajamorama didn't make it into the "official" titles of the Summer Uprising, but you can still vote for it in the "Player's Choice" poll starting in August. It's a pretty awesome smash-style fighting game with online multiplayer and everything:

You can blame Microsoft for not having an easy way to put achievements in the XNA dev kit, but the main issue I have also permeates with XBLA: Why can't I play a full game without being connected to Xbox Live?

Because the games aren't rated by the ESRB. If any of the XBLIG games has content in it that violates the terms of service, Microsoft will void the license and refund the money of anyone who has purchased the game.

In order for this process to not contain any loopholes, they need consoles to be online in order to validate the license upon each launch of a game.

This online requirement is what allows unrated games on the console. Rating a game through the ESRB is an expensive proposition, one that most developers couldn't afford.

You don't need to be rated by the ESRB, it's entirely voluntary. The online requirement most likely has more to do with Microsoft wanting to retain the ability to pull any games they don't like for whatever reason. There's some legal considerations as well, as if someone threatened to sue MS because one of the indie games violates copyrights or patents, it's relatively trivial for MS to ban-hammer the game and just make the whole issue go away. If they didn't have the ability to remote-nuke games at will they would be on slightly shakier ground since they're acting as the publisher (although what if any liability they would have is rather questionable).

You don't need to be rated by the ESRB, it's entirely voluntary. The online requirement most likely has more to do with Microsoft wanting to retain the ability to pull any games they don't like for whatever reason. There's some legal considerations as well, as if someone threatened to sue MS because one of the indie games violates copyrights or patents, it's relatively trivial for MS to ban-hammer the game and just make the whole issue go away. If they didn't have the ability to remote-nuke games at will they would be on slightly shakier ground since they're acting as the publisher (although what if any liability they would have is rather questionable).

It is voluntary to only run ESRB rated games, but it is also a good thing to do for the entire industry, and Microsoft understands this.

"You must be connected to Xbox LIVE to start an Xbox LIVE Indie Games title as part of our continued effort to provide family-safe content through the Indie Games site. When the game starts, the Xbox LIVE service determines whether content was removed and blocked from play because it was determined to be inappropriate. If a title is removed and blocked from play because of offensive content, Microsoft will contact users who purchased the content, and will issue these users a refund for the purchase."

"This message is by design. There is no workaround for this issue. To play Xbox LIVE Indie Games titles, you must be connected to Xbox LIVE to start the game title. After the game starts and loads, you can disconnect from Xbox LIVE if you want to."

You can blame Microsoft for not having an easy way to put achievements in the XNA dev kit, but the main issue I have also permeates with XBLA: Why can't I play a full game without being connected to Xbox Live?

Because the games aren't rated by the ESRB. If any of the XBLIG games has content in it that violates the terms of service, Microsoft will void the license and refund the money of anyone who has purchased the game.

In order for this process to not contain any loopholes, they need consoles to be online in order to validate the license upon each launch of a game.

This online requirement is what allows unrated games on the console. Rating a game through the ESRB is an expensive proposition, one that most developers couldn't afford.

Why couldn't you at least have some sort of time lapse verification process instead? As in verification of license/updates once a week; if you haven't logged in a 7 day time frame then your license is temporarily expired until your next log in?

You don't need to be rated by the ESRB, it's entirely voluntary. The online requirement most likely has more to do with Microsoft wanting to retain the ability to pull any games they don't like for whatever reason. There's some legal considerations as well, as if someone threatened to sue MS because one of the indie games violates copyrights or patents, it's relatively trivial for MS to ban-hammer the game and just make the whole issue go away. If they didn't have the ability to remote-nuke games at will they would be on slightly shakier ground since they're acting as the publisher (although what if any liability they would have is rather questionable).

The ESRB has recently created an online submission, where developers answer a series of questions, as opposed to submitting video like the previously had to. It streamlines the process greatly. The old way is still available as well, but is generally used for larger titles, where this new expedited process was crafted to allow for quick ratings of the sudden large influx of mobile / casual games.

The ESRB has recently created an online submission, where developers answer a series of questions, as opposed to submitting video like the previously had to. It streamlines the process greatly. The old way is still available as well, but is generally used for larger titles, where this new expedited process was crafted to allow for quick ratings of the sudden large influx of mobile / casual games.

I still think the ESRB is a red herring. The ability to remove games at will has nothing to do with the ESRB and everything to do with Microsoft wanting to retain control (whether for reasons of "family friendliness" or something more nefarious it's still about control). Listening to people talk I get the distinct impression that a lot of people believe the ESRB and MPAA are government agencies, or at least government sanctioned and that they have some sort of regulatory power. They're purely industry inventions, created in order to provide the illusion of censorship to the public. I suppose that means they've largely succeeded, the sheep are well and truly fooled.

The ESRB has recently created an online submission, where developers answer a series of questions, as opposed to submitting video like the previously had to. It streamlines the process greatly. The old way is still available as well, but is generally used for larger titles, where this new expedited process was crafted to allow for quick ratings of the sudden large influx of mobile / casual games.

I still think the ESRB is a red herring. The ability to remove games at will has nothing to do with the ESRB and everything to do with Microsoft wanting to retain control (whether for reasons of "family friendliness" or something more nefarious it's still about control). Listening to people talk I get the distinct impression that a lot of people believe the ESRB and MPAA are government agencies, or at least government sanctioned and that they have some sort of regulatory power. They're purely industry inventions, created in order to provide the illusion of censorship to the public. I suppose that means they've largely succeeded, the sheep are well and truly fooled.

The ESRB and MPAA aren't there to create the illusion of censorship. They were created to prevent government censorship.

"Nefarious." Give me a break.

Microsoft didn't have to create XBox Live Indie Games at all! That's the alternative to the online limitation. Not creating XBLIG at all would be the "nefarious" option. XBLIG and XNA is a huge benefit to people who want try their hand at creating games for a console. I've used it myself. It is cheap, very easy to use, and doesn't actually exist on any other console platform.

Microsoft didn't want completely unregulated games running on their system. It could lead to horrible press, legal issues, and could actually be bad for the industry overall. So they created a system that has some limitations to address the game rating issue, but overall is still a great addition to the platform.

Everyone always wants to put Microsoft in a negative light with "nefarious control", but they actually did something that no other console maker has. The alternative is that they could have skipped it entirely!

The ESRB and MPAA aren't there to create the illusion of censorship. They were created to prevent government censorship.

"Nefarious." Give me a break.

Microsoft didn't have to create XBox Live Indie Games at all! That's the alternative to the online limitation. Not creating XBLIG at all would be the "nefarious" option. XBLIG and XNA is a huge benefit to people who want try their hand at creating games for a console. I've used it myself. It is cheap, very easy to use, and doesn't actually exist on any other console platform.

Microsoft didn't want completely unregulated games running on their system. It could lead to horrible press, legal issues, and could actually be bad for the industry overall. So they created a system that has some limitations to address the game rating issue, but overall is still a great addition to the platform.

Everyone always wants to put Microsoft in a negative light with "nefarious control", but they actually did something that no other console maker has. The alternative is that they could have skipped it entirely!

You misunderstand my point. I was saying they did it to retain control, the reason for wanting that control is irrelevant. And, yes, the MPAA and ESRB are there to provide the illusion of censorship. They exist so that the public can point to an organization as "thinking of the children", and not demand that the government do it. I.E. they exist so idiots believe that media is censored and don't demand it of the government. The non-idiots of course aren't calling for censorship in the first place.

I'm really surprised microsoft has not figured out a way to promote the higher quality indie titles (or the fact that they're available at all). I imagine some of this is on purpose to not piss of XBLA publishers and devs, but it's something MS has that other consoles don't and they should be boasting.

As the owner of an XBLIG review website (*plug* http://www.xboxindiegames.co.uk/), I wholeheartedly agree - as with other "public" stores such as the iOS App Store and the Android marketplace, there's a lot of shovelware and junk on the platform, but there's some genuine gems in there, too.

Unfortunately, XBLIG hasn't received that much support from Microsoft over the last few years - despite the fact that Microsoft tweaked the XNA dev platform to make it easy to produce games for WM 7 phones (and a number of XBLIG games have since been ported across as a result).

Personally, I suspect there's two key reasons for this:1) Management changes: the team who put together the original Community Games initiative have long since moved on; their successors haven't had the same level of enthusiasm about the potential of indie games. And it's not just XBLIG: XBLA has moved away from the early "indie" focus; the average game price has significantly increased and games are generally published by larger companies such as Namco, EA, Ubisoft and THQ.2) Concerns over sales cannibalisation: promoting XBLIG too much could impact sales on the far more lucrative XBLA channel - and whether or not there's any "interested parties" pushing to keep XBLA king, that's got to weigh on the management team's collective mind.

(Personally, I doubt there would be that much impact: the relatively low sales and constraints on pricing and filesizes have resulted in most XBLIG games being designed around the "coffee break" casual experience, whereas XBLA have moved closer towards full AAAA experiences. As such, there's fairly limited overlap between them...)

ClownRazer wrote:

Also if indie games are "good" enough (quality or sales) there should be some channel for the devs to publish them in XBLA with all the trappings that entails -- namely achievements.

It'd certainly be nice to see an "upgrade" path for high-quality XBLIG games. Unfortunately, with the focus of XBLA having moved away from "indie" games, it's difficult to see how this could be implemented.

fried_zombie wrote:

You can blame Microsoft for not having an easy way to put achievements in the XNA dev kit, but the main issue I have also permeates with XBLA: Why can't I play a full game without being connected to Xbox Live?

I think people have already given good answers on why you need to be connected to XBL to play XBLIG games: as the games aren't reviewed by Microsoft[*], they need a mechanism to remove anything which is identified as having inappropriate or infringing content - there's been at least one case of adult content (briefly) making it onto the platform and I've seen several games where the art and/or music sounds as if it's been more than a little inspired by big-name commercial IP. The former could result in significant media backlash; the latter could result in potentially costly and high-profile legal action, neither of which is good for the platform or Microsoft as a whole.

S'just the price you pay for having a platform which allows people to create *anything* and then sell it for a profit, while paying virtually nothing for the infrastructure (the XNA dev kit is free; a 1-year subscription to the XBLIG "approval/publishing" community costs $99).

As regards achievements: again, there's the potential concern over sales cannibalisation - though this risk could be minimised by keeping XBLIG and XBLA achievements separate.

However, there's a bigger issue: as the various "vibrator" apps have shown, there's a minority of developers who would be more than willing to abuse an achievement system (i.e. giving them away for zero effort) in the hopes of earning revenue, which in turn would devalue the achievements system. It might be possible to expand the peer-review process to deter this, but this would put an extra strain on the process and would also change the focus of the process, from assessing the "technical" aspects of each game to making a judgement of the game's content. And that's the first step towards censorship - and while it may be idealistic and naive, I think it's important to have a channel where people are free to experiment and explore without being subject to potentially biased judgements. Admittedly, this leads to junk such as "avatar zombie massage app", but it also leads to strange and wondrous games, such as the controversial Baby Maker Extreme and the sublime Leave Home...

[*] essentially, games are submitted to the XNA "Community" of developers, who then review it and confirm that it's robust and doesn't contravene XBLIG regulations (which basically boils down to no adult or abusive content). Beyond these "legal compliance" checks, pretty much anything goes on the content front

The indie games community should band together and make their own achievement system that they can share amongst their games.

Several games have implemented their own internal "achievements" (though they're generally called "awards" or somesuch as Microsoft doesn't let XBLIG games use the term achievements). However, there's no way to access external systems such as a networked server or "shared" disk storage (though they can write out a save file). So there's no way to share data between titles.

(that said, some developers have experimented with peer-to-peer scoreboards and achievement lists so that players of a given game can see the scores of other players. But this only works for games with an online multiplayer component - and even then, online multiplayer is only available to XBL Gold members, so Silver users are left out)